From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE39C433E0 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E58A206F1 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:36:07 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1E58A206F1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bugs.launchpad.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:41430 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlIJS-0005cl-Co for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:36:06 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58722) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlIIu-0005Cu-I9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:35:32 -0400 Received: from indium.canonical.com ([91.189.90.7]:54726) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlIIs-0008NH-Ix for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:35:32 -0400 Received: from loganberry.canonical.com ([91.189.90.37]) by indium.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2 #2 (Debian)) id 1jlIIq-0003M3-Au for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:35:28 +0000 Received: from loganberry.canonical.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by loganberry.canonical.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF072E8113 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:35:28 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:27:45 -0000 From: Evan Nemerson <1883784@bugs.launchpad.net> To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Launchpad-Notification-Type: bug X-Launchpad-Bug: product=qemu; status=New; importance=Undecided; assignee=None; X-Launchpad-Bug-Tags: ppc64le X-Launchpad-Bug-Information-Type: Public X-Launchpad-Bug-Private: no X-Launchpad-Bug-Security-Vulnerability: no X-Launchpad-Bug-Commenters: nemequ X-Launchpad-Bug-Reporter: Evan Nemerson (nemequ) X-Launchpad-Bug-Modifier: Evan Nemerson (nemequ) Message-Id: <159233926606.29237.7012634601262116409.malonedeb@chaenomeles.canonical.com> Subject: [Bug 1883784] [NEW] [ppc64le] qemu behavior differs from ppc64le hardware X-Launchpad-Message-Rationale: Subscriber (QEMU) @qemu-devel-ml X-Launchpad-Message-For: qemu-devel-ml Precedence: bulk X-Generated-By: Launchpad (canonical.com); Revision="b190cebbf563f89e480a8b57f641753c8196bda0"; Instance="production-secrets-lazr.conf" X-Launchpad-Hash: 681f0831e4a18632cce94318e0cbc71a128533a5 Received-SPF: none client-ip=91.189.90.7; envelope-from=bounces@canonical.com; helo=indium.canonical.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/16 16:35:28 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -58 X-Spam_score: -5.9 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: (-5.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Bug 1883784 <1883784@bugs.launchpad.net> Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Public bug reported: I have some code which passes my test suite on PPC64LE hardware when compiled with GCC 10, but the saem binary fails with both qemu-ppc64le 4.2 (on Fedora 32) and qemu-ppc64le-static 5.0.0 (Debian testing). I'm not getting any errors about illegal instructions or anything, like that; the results are just silently different on qemu. I've generated a reduced test case, which is attached along with the binaries (both are the same code, one is just statically linked). They should execute successufully on PPC64LE hardware, but on qemu they hit a __builtin_abort (because the computed value doesn't match the expected value). Without being familiar with PPC assembly I'm not sure what else I can do, but if there is anything please let me know. ** Affects: qemu Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: ppc64le ** Attachment added: "test case" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1883784/+attachment/5384531/+files/mm_cv= tpd_ps.tar.bz2 -- = You received this bug notification because you are a member of qemu- devel-ml, which is subscribed to QEMU. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1883784 Title: [ppc64le] qemu behavior differs from ppc64le hardware Status in QEMU: New Bug description: I have some code which passes my test suite on PPC64LE hardware when compiled with GCC 10, but the saem binary fails with both qemu-ppc64le 4.2 (on Fedora 32) and qemu-ppc64le-static 5.0.0 (Debian testing). I'm not getting any errors about illegal instructions or anything, like that; the results are just silently different on qemu. I've generated a reduced test case, which is attached along with the binaries (both are the same code, one is just statically linked). They should execute successufully on PPC64LE hardware, but on qemu they hit a __builtin_abort (because the computed value doesn't match the expected value). Without being familiar with PPC assembly I'm not sure what else I can do, but if there is anything please let me know. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1883784/+subscriptions